Next Article in Journal
The Significance of CD20 Intensity Variance in Pediatric Patients with B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia
Next Article in Special Issue
Deep Brain Stimulation in the Treatment of Tardive Dyskinesia
Previous Article in Journal
RNA-Seq Reveals the mRNAs, miRNAs, and lncRNAs Expression Profile of Knee Joint Synovial Tissue in Osteoarthritis Patients
Previous Article in Special Issue
Treatment of Dystonic Tremor of the Upper Limbs: A Single-Center Retrospective Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm12041450
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Quantitative High Density EEG Brain Connectivity Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease: The Phase Locking Value (PLV)

by
Lazzaro di Biase
1,2,3,*,
Lorenzo Ricci
1,2,
Maria Letizia Caminiti
1,2,
Pasquale Maria Pecoraro
1,2,
Simona Paola Carbone
1,2 and
Vincenzo Di Lazzaro
1,2
1
Unit of Neurology, Neurophysiology, Neurobiology and Psichiatry, Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128 Rome, Italy
2
Neurology Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Campus Bio-Medico, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, 00128 Rome, Italy
3
Brain Innovations Lab, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Álvaro del Portillo 21, 00128 Rome, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(4), 1450; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041450
Submission received: 3 January 2023 / Revised: 1 February 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 11 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Clinical Management of Movement Disorders)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Introduction: The present study explores brain connectivity in Parkinson’s disease (PD) and in age matched healthy controls (HC), using quantitative EEG analysis, at rest and during a motor tasks. We also evaluated the diagnostic performance of the phase locking value (PLV), a measure of functional connectivity, in differentiating PD patients from HCs. Methods: High-density, 64-channels, EEG data from 26 PD patients and 13 HC were analyzed. EEG signals were recorded at rest and during a motor task. Phase locking value (PLV), as a measure of functional connectivity, was evaluated for each group in a resting state and during a motor task for the following frequency bands: (i) delta: 2–4 Hz; (ii) theta: 5–7 Hz; (iii) alpha: 8–12 Hz; beta: 13–29 Hz; and gamma: 30–60 Hz. The diagnostic performance in PD vs. HC discrimination was evaluated. Results: Results showed no significant differences in PLV connectivity between the two groups during the resting state, but a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during the motor task, in HC compared to PD. Comparing the resting state versus the motor task for each group, only HCs showed a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during motor task. A ROC curve analysis for HC vs. PD discrimination, showed an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.75, a sensitivity of 100%, and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%. Conclusions: The present study evaluated the brain connectivity through quantitative EEG analysis in Parkinson’s disease versus healthy controls, showing a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during the motor task, in HC compared to PD. This neurophysiology biomarkers showed the potentiality to be explored in future studies as a potential screening biomarker for PD patients.

1. Introduction

The diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease (PD) is currently based on the clinical evaluation Poewe, et al. [1] of the cardinal motor symptoms, bradykinesia, rest tremor, and rigidity, which represent the hallmarks for the in vivo diagnosis [2] according to the current diagnostic criteria for PD [3]. Different strategies have been explored to characterize PD features in a non-invasive way. One first approach is to follow the clinical diagnostic pathway trying to make clinical evaluations of motor symptoms more objective and quantitative, through a motion analysis technique able to characterize PD motor symptoms [4,5,6], such as bradykinesia [7,8,9], tremors [10,11,12,13], rigidity [9,14,15,16], and axial symptoms, such as gait, balance, and postural issues [17,18,19,20,21,22], also with the support of machine learning algorithms [23,24,25,26,27]. Another possible approach is to explore the brain activities that underly and determine the PD symptoms, which are characterized by pathological oscillatory activities [28,29] and have been widely used to manage therapy, such as deep brain stimulation [30,31], but can be used also as a proxy for PD neurophysiology biomarkers identification.
In this context, neurophysiological tests may help to better understand the pathophysiology of PD, and their low cost, brief execution times, and the wide diffusion among hospitals represent a competitive advantage in respect to other techniques to support PD biomarkers identification in clinical practice.
Brain connectivity is a method to explore the way how different brain regions interact and communicate with each other. The degeneration of nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons, which is the hallmark of the pathophysiology of PD, leads to the dysfunction of the basal ganglia–thalamo-cortical pathway, which underlies the PD motor symptoms [32].
Resting state functional MRI (RS-fMRI) can be used to study the connectivity among different brain areas in PD patients. A meta-analysis of RS-fMRI connectivity studies in PD patients [33], showed a decreased functional connectivity within the posterior putamen. The functional network involving this area and its cortical projections can be modulated by levodopa administration [32,33,34].
Among the neurophysiological techniques, electroencephalogram (EEG) is one of the most versatile and widely available techniques, it offers good balance between the temporal and spatial resolution, meaning that this technology is most frequently used in studies on PD biomarkers.
In de novo PD patients, compared to controls, a reduced coherence in α-β EEG frequency bands and a hyperconnectivity in γ band were observed [35].
Exploring dynamic networks between neuronal populations in a quantitative way, by noninvasive electrophysiological mapping with EEG, could unveil crucial information about brain connectivity in PD and subsequently, improve the diagnostic process.
Nonlinear and nonstationary systems may be analyzed with the phase locking methodology [36]. Indeed, the brain can be compared to a nonlinear dynamic system and, as such, the phase locking approach can be used for the scope [36,37,38]. Phase locking value (PLV) is a non-linear measure of pairwise functional connectivity (Lee, Liu et al., 2019), used to quantify the phase coupling between two biological nonlinear signals in a time-series, such as electroencephalographic signals [39]. A high PLV between two brain regions indicates a high synchrony [40].
The present study aims at investigating brain connectivity, through quantitative EEG analysis in Parkinson’s disease versus healthy controls, at rest and during a motor task, exploring the performance of the phase locking value (PLV) in discriminating the two study groups.

2. Methods

2.1. Patients and Data Collection

The database and EEG data utilized in this study were obtained from the University of Iowa Hospitals & Clinics (UIHC) Movement Disorders Clinics [41]. The database contains high-density EEG (HD-EEG) [42] data from 26 patients with PD and 13 demographically matched healthy controls (HCs). All patients in the experiment met the UK Parkinson’s Disease Brain Bank criteria for the diagnosis of idiopathic PD [43]. All patients underwent neuropsychological evaluation using the Montreal cognitive assessment (MOCA), EEG signals were recorded at rest and during a specific lower-limb pedaling motor task [41] using a customized 64-channels cap (EASYCAP GmbHAm Anger, 582237 Woerthsee-Etterschlag, Germany) with a high-pass filter of 0.1 Hz and a sampling rate of 500 Hz (Brain Products). Online reference and ground channels were Pz and FPz, respectively. Patients and HCs were both instructed to perform a lower-limb motor task during the EEG recording. Therefore, for each subject we analyzed the EEG recorded in both conditions (i.e., Resting State and Motor Task).

2.2. Quantitative EEG Analysis

Quantitative EEG analysis was performed using the Brainstorm Toolbox for MATLAB (Tadel et al., 2011) (The Math Works Inc., Natick, MA, USA), and in home MATLAB code. Offline data pre-processing was performed using Brainstorm and included: (i) DC removal; (ii) 60-Hz notch filter; (iii) bandpass filter between 1 and 70 Hz (linear phase finite impulse response filter); (iv) EEG re-reference to average; (v) and correction for pulse and eye-blink artifacts using independent component analysis [44,45].

2.3. EEG Connectivity Analysis

To assess the differences in brain networks among PD and HCs we performed a measure of EEG functional connectivity. We selected a total of 180 s continuous epoch from the EEG recordings free from relevant artifacts for further analysis [46,47]. As a measure of connectivity, we computed the phase locking value (PLV). PLV is an important measure of synchronization when studying bio-signals and especially electrical brain activities. It is a measure of non-directional frequency-specific synchronization reflecting long-range integrations and it assesses the extent to which the phase difference between two signals changes over time [36,37,48].
Taking into account the lack of consensus in the classification of frequency bands for quantitative EEG analysis [47], starting from the most recent International Pharmaco-EEG Society (IPEG; [49]) recommendations, also endorsed by the International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology recommendations on frequency and a topographic analysis of resting state EEG rhythms [47], the final frequency band selected for the phase locking value connectivity analysis was based on the frequency band employed in several previous studies [45,46,48] in which, with respect to the IPEG recommendation, was selected the fastest delta band 2–4 Hz and a restricted theta band 5–7 Hz. We measured the PLV for all possible channel combinations and averaged to obtain a measure of global connectivity [46,48] for the following frequency bands: delta: 2–4 Hz; theta: 5–7 Hz; alpha: 8–12 Hz; beta: 13–29 Hz; and gamma: 30–60 Hz. Connectivity analysis was performed separately for the resting state EEG and for the EEG recorded during the lower limb pedaling motor task.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using the R statistical package [50] and MATLAB (Mathworks). Data distribution was checked by means of a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The differences in Global Connectivity among PD and HCs was tested using a three-way aligned rank transformed (ART) ANOVA for non-parametric factorial three-way designs [51] with Frequency (five levels: delta, theta, alpha, beta, gamma), Group (two levels: PD and HCs) and Condition (two levels: resting state and motor task) as within the subject factor. A Bonferroni correction was used for post-hoc tests of multiple comparisons when needed.
To estimate the clinical value of EEG connectivity for differentiating between PD and HCs, we built receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves on the PLV connectivity values for each frequency band and for each condition (i.e., resting state and motor task).
The following performance metrics were estimated in terms of outcome prediction: (i) sensitivity (ii) specificity, (iii) positive predictive value, (iv) negative predictive value; and (v) accuracy. The ROC curve point showing the highest combination of predictive values was selected as the optimum cut-off value to differentiate PD vs. HCs. Finally, we built non-parametric ROC curves to estimate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy. CIs were validated using 10,000 stratified bootstrap replicates [52]. Moreover, a Spearman correlation test was used to assess the correlation between MOCA scores and the PLV in each frequency band. Significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results are reported as the mean ± standard deviation unless differently stated.

3. Results

3.1. Patient Cohort and Control Group

PD patients (nine females and 17 males) had a mean disease duration of 6.2 years (SD: ±3.7), a mean age of 67.3 years (SD: ±9.2), a UPDRS III score of 14.8 (SD: ±7.1), and a MOCA score of 23.3 (SD: ±3.9). The healthy controls (five females and eight males) had a mean age of 68.9 years (SD: ±8.2) [41].

3.2. Comparison between PD and Control Groups

3.2.1. EEG Connectivity

The comparison between PD and HCs revealed no significant differences between groups (factor group: F(1,370) = 0.76, p = 0.38), but a significant group by frequency interaction (F(4,370) = 3.62, p < 0.005; Figure 1), related to a higher connectivity in the delta frequency band for HCs compared to PD (Bonferroni corrected p = 0.04; Figure 2). We also found lower connectivity values in the gamma frequency band for HCs compared to PD, although with a borderline level of significance (Bonferroni corrected p = 0.05; Figure 2).
The ART ANOVA considering condition and frequency, as within the subject factor, showed a significant condition effect (F(1,370) = 10.77, p = 0.001), related to higher global connectivity values during the motor task compared to the resting state. A significant group by condition interaction was also found (F(1,370) = 5.33, p = 0.02). Post-hoc tests revealed a significant difference in connectivity values during the motor task compared to the resting state in HCs (Bonferroni corrected p = 0.004; Figure 3), as opposed to PD patients who did not reach the statistical significance (p = 0.18). We also found a significant condition by frequency interaction (F(4,370) = 3.48, p = 0.008; Figure 3), related to higher delta connectivity values during the motor task, as opposed to the resting state (Bonferroni corrected p = 0.03; see Figure 3). Finally, we found no correlation between the PLV connectivity values and MOCA scores in each frequency band (p > 0.05).

3.2.2. ROC Curve Analysis

The ROC curve analysis showed that the PLV connectivity analysis in the delta frequency band during the motor task band was able to differentiate HC from PD (Figure 4) with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.58–0.89), a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 100–100%), a specificity of 50% (95% CI, 31–69%), a PPV of 50% (95% CI, 42–62%), an NPV of 100% (95% CI, 100–100%), and an accuracy of 66.7% (95% CI, 54–79%).

4. Discussion

In the present study, we evaluated brain connectivity through a quantitative EEG analysis in Parkinson’s disease versus healthy controls, at rest and during a pedaling motor task, exploring the diagnostic performance of the phase locking value (PLV) in discriminating the two study groups.
In the literature, few studies explored the PLV analysis in the PD population. Bertrand, McIntosh, Postuma, Kovacevic, Latreille, Panisset, Chouinard and Gagnon [40] compared the baseline resting state EEG of healthy subjects and PD patients, and after a follow-up classified the PD patients who developed dementia and patients who did not developed dementia. The results were assessed in terms of both signal synchrony and variability at different timescales, respectively, and statistically expressed by the PLV and multiscale entropy (MSE). In the delta frequencies, the PLV was lower in the PD who developed dementia compared to the PD without dementia and controls, while, for the beta and gamma frequencies, the PD-dementia patients showed a higher PLV when compared with the PD-non dementia patients, and both groups showed a higher PLV when compared to the controls. Conversely, the signal variability was lower at the higher frequencies and higher at the lower ones.
The main hypothesis in Gerardo Sánchez-Dinorín et al.’s [53] research was that functional connectivity abnormalities could predict cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease. The study showed that the increased synchrony of frontal slow waves predicts cognitive decline in PD patients after less than a decade with the illness [53].
In Soojin Lee et al.’s [54] study, the PLV was employed to evaluate the effect of dopaminergic medication and electrical vestibular stimulation (EVS) in Parkinson’s disease. While levodopa medication was effective in normalizing the mean PLV only, all EVS stimuli normalized the mean, variability, and entropy of the PLV in the PD subject, demonstrating both low- and high-frequency EVS exert widespread influences on cortico-cortical connectivity [54].
In the present study, the results showed no significant differences in the PLV connectivity between the two groups (PD vs. HCs) during the resting state, but a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during the motor task in the HCs compared to PD. In addition, comparing the resting state versus motor task for each group, only in the HC results showed a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during the motor task. These results showed a deficit for the PD subjects in modulating the delta band PLV brain synchrony during movement, in contrast with the healthy controls. In addition, in our study the PLV connectivity was not correlated with cognitive performance.
These preliminary results also show that the higher value of the PLV during the motor task could be a potential useful tool as a neurophysiological connectivity biomarker for PD. Considering the ROC AUC of 0.75, which indicates a good discrimination performance, the sensitivity of 100%, indicating the ability to identify a high number of patients potentially affected by PD, and a NPV of 100% indicating the ability to exclude only truly HCs, combined with its lower specificity and PPV, leads this predictor to be the candidate as a screening biomarker.
The main limitations of the study are the small number of the sample, the type of motor task which was not compared to different motor tasks of lower limbs or tasks of upper limbs, and in line with the lack of consensus in the classification of frequency bands for the quantitative EEG analysis [47], the specific band selected for the present study can be a limitation, therefore further studies are needed to confirm the results and the proposed applications.

5. Conclusions

The present study evaluated the brain connectivity through a quantitative EEG analysis in Parkinson’s disease versus healthy controls, showing a higher PLV connectivity in the delta band during the motor task in the HCs compared to PD. This neurophysiology biomarker showed the potentiality to be explored in future studies as a potential screening biomarker for PD patients.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.d.B.; writing—original draft preparation, L.d.B., L.R., M.L.C., P.M.P. and S.P.C.; writing—review and editing, L.d.B., L.R. and V.D.L.; supervision, V.D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study of the original dataset was approved by the University of Iowa Office of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). In addition, the present study was approved with a notification by the local ethics committee of the University Campus Bio-Medico of Rome.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the original dataset studies.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are openly available in http://www.predictsite.com/ (accessed on 1 January 2022) [42].

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Poewe, W.; Seppi, K.; Tanner, C.M.; Halliday, G.M.; Brundin, P.; Volkmann, J.; Schrag, A.-E.; Lang, A.E. Parkinson disease. Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2017, 3, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rizzo, G.; Copetti, M.; Arcuti, S.; Martino, D.; Fontana, A.; Logroscino, G. Accuracy of clinical diagnosis of Parkinson disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Neurology 2016, 86, 566–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Gibb, W.; Lees, A. The relevance of the Lewy body to the pathogenesis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry. 1988, 51, 745–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sanchez-Ferro, A.; Elshehabi, M.; Godinho, C.; Salkovic, D.; Hobert, M.A.; Domingos, J.; van Uem, J.M.; Ferreira, J.J.; Maetzler, W. New methods for the assessment of Parkinson’s disease (2005 to 2015): A systematic review. Mov. Disord. 2016, 31, 1283–1292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. di Biase, L.; Pecoraro, P.M.; Pecoraro, G.; Caminiti, M.L.; Di Lazzaro, V. Markerless Radio Frequency Indoor Monitoring for Telemedicine: Gait Analysis, Indoor Positioning, Fall Detection, Tremor Analysis, Vital Signs and Sleep Monitoring. Sensors 2022, 22, 8486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. d’Angelis, O.; Di Biase, L.; Vollero, L.; Merone, M. IoT architecture for continuous long term monitoring: Parkinson’s Disease case study. Internet Things 2022, 20, 100614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Stamatakis, J.; Ambroise, J.; Cremers, J.; Sharei, H.; Delvaux, V.; Macq, B.; Garraux, G. Finger tapping clinimetric score prediction in Parkinson’s disease using low-cost accelerometers. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. 2013, 2013, 717853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Summa, S.; Tosi, J.; Taffoni, F.; Di Biase, L.; Marano, M.; Rizzo, A.C.; Tombini, M.; Di Pino, G.; Formica, D. Assessing bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease using gyroscope signals. In Proceedings of the 2017 international conference on rehabilitation robotics (ICORR), London, UK, 17–20 July 2017; pp. 1556–1561. [Google Scholar]
  9. di Biase, L.; Summa, S.; Tosi, J.; Taffoni, F.; Marano, M.; Cascio Rizzo, A.; Vecchio, F.; Formica, D.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Di Pino, G.; et al. Quantitative Analysis of Bradykinesia and Rigidity in Parkinson’s Disease. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deuschl, G.; Krack, P.; Lauk, M.; Timmer, J. Clinical neurophysiology of tremor. J. Clin. Neurophysiol. 1996, 13, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Di Pino, G.; Formica, D.; Melgari, J.-M.; Taffoni, F.; Salomone, G.; di Biase, L.; Caimo, E.; Vernieri, F.; Guglielmelli, E. Neurophysiological bases of tremors and accelerometric parameters analysis. In Proceedings of the 2012 4th IEEE RAS & EMBS International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob), Rome, Italy, 24–27 June 2012; pp. 1820–1825. [Google Scholar]
  12. di Biase, L.; Brittain, J.S.; Shah, S.A.; Pedrosa, D.J.; Cagnan, H.; Mathy, A.; Chen, C.C.; Martin-Rodriguez, J.F.; Mir, P.; Timmerman, L.; et al. Tremor stability index: A new tool for differential diagnosis in tremor syndromes. Brain 2017, 140, 1977–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. di Biase, L.; Brittain, J.S.; Peter, B.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Shah, S.A. Methods and System for Characterising Tremors. US20200046259A1, 5 January 2023. Filed 17 January 2018 and issued 26 July 2018. [Google Scholar]
  14. Endo, T.; Okuno, R.; Yokoe, M.; Akazawa, K.; Sakoda, S. A novel method for systematic analysis of rigidity in Parkinson’s disease. Mov. Disord. Off. J. Mov. Disord. Soc. 2009, 24, 2218–2224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kwon, Y.; Park, S.H.; Kim, J.W.; Ho, Y.; Jeon, H.M.; Bang, M.J.; Koh, S.B.; Kim, J.H.; Eom, G.M. Quantitative evaluation of parkinsonian rigidity during intra-operative deep brain stimulation. Bio-Medical Mater. Eng. 2014, 24, 2273–2281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Raiano, L.; Di Pino, G.; Di Biase, L.; Tombini, M.; Tagliamonte, N.L.; Formica, D. PDMeter: A Wrist Wearable Device for an at-home Assessment of the Parkinson’s Disease Rigidity. IEEE Trans. Neural Syst. Rehabil. Eng. 2020, 28, 1325–1333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Moore, S.T.; MacDougall, H.G.; Gracies, J.M.; Cohen, H.S.; Ondo, W.G. Long-term monitoring of gait in Parkinson’s disease. Gait Posture 2007, 26, 200–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Schlachetzki, J.C.M.; Barth, J.; Marxreiter, F.; Gossler, J.; Kohl, Z.; Reinfelder, S.; Gassner, H.; Aminian, K.; Eskofier, B.M.; Winkler, J.; et al. Wearable sensors objectively measure gait parameters in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Tosi, J.; Summa, S.; Taffoni, F.; Biase, L.d.; Marano, M.; Rizzo, A.C.; Tombini, M.; Schena, E.; Formica, D.; Pino, G.D. Feature Extraction in Sit-to-Stand Task Using M-IMU Sensors and Evaluatiton in Parkinson’s Disease. In Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE International Symposium on Medical Measurements and Applications (MeMeA), Rome, Italy, 11–13 June 2018; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Suppa, A.; Kita, A.; Leodori, G.; Zampogna, A.; Nicolini, E.; Lorenzi, P.; Rao, R.; Irrera, F. L-DOPA and freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease: Objective assessment through a wearable wireless system. Front. Neurol. 2017, 8, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. di Biase, L.; Di Santo, A.; Caminiti, M.L.; De Liso, A.; Shah, S.A.; Ricci, L.; Di Lazzaro, V. Gait analysis in Parkinson’s disease: An overview of the most accurate markers for diagnosis and symptoms monitoring. Sensors 2020, 20, 3529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. di Biase, L.; Raiano, L.; Caminiti, M.L.; Pecoraro, P.M.; Di Lazzaro, V. Parkinson’s Disease Wearable Gait Analysis: Kinematic and Dynamic Markers for Diagnosis. Sensors 2022, 22, 8773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alam, M.N.; Garg, A.; Munia, T.T.K.; Fazel-Rezai, R.; Tavakolian, K. Vertical ground reaction force marker for Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0175951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cavallo, F.; Moschetti, A.; Esposito, D.; Maremmani, C.; Rovini, E. Upper limb motor pre-clinical assessment in Parkinson’s disease using machine learning. Park. Relat. Disord. 2019, 63, 111–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Xu, S.; Pan, Z. A novel ensemble of random forest for assisting diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease on small handwritten dynamics dataset. Int. J. Med. Inform. 2020, 144, 104283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. di Biase, L.; Raiano, L.; Caminiti, M.L.; Pecoraro, P.M.; Di Lazzaro, V. Artificial intelligence in Parkinson’s disease—Symptoms identification and monitoring. In Augmenting Neurological Disorder Prediction and Rehabilitation Using Artificial Intelligence; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2022; pp. 35–52. [Google Scholar]
  27. di Biase, L.; Tinkhauser, G.; Martin Moraud, E.; Caminiti, M.L.; Pecoraro, P.M.; Di Lazzaro, V. Adaptive, personalized closed-loop therapy for Parkinson’s disease: Biochemical, neurophysiological, and wearable sensing systems. Expert Rev. Neurother. 2021, 21, 1371–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Assenza, G.; Capone, F.; di Biase, L.; Ferreri, F.; Florio, L.; Guerra, A.; Marano, M.; Paolucci, M.; Ranieri, F.; Salomone, G. Oscillatory activities in neurological disorders of elderly: Biomarkers to target for neuromodulation. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2017, 9, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Melgari, J.-M.; Curcio, G.; Mastrolilli, F.; Salomone, G.; Trotta, L.; Tombini, M.; Di Biase, L.; Scrascia, F.; Fini, R.; Fabrizio, E. Alpha and beta EEG power reflects L-dopa acute administration in parkinsonian patients. Front. Aging Neurosci. 2014, 6, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Tinkhauser, G.; Pogosyan, A.; Debove, I.; Nowacki, A.; Shah, S.A.; Seidel, K.; Tan, H.; Brittain, J.S.; Petermann, K.; di Biase, L. Directional local field potentials: A tool to optimize deep brain stimulation. Mov. Disord. 2018, 33, 159–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. di Biase, L.; Fasano, A. Low-frequency deep brain stimulation for Parkinson’s disease: Great expectation or false hope? Mov. Disord. 2016, 31, 962–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Tessitore, A.; Cirillo, M.; De Micco, R. Functional connectivity signatures of Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Parkinson’s disease. J. Park. Dis. 2019, 9, 637–652. [Google Scholar]
  33. Herz, D.M.; Eickhoff, S.B.; Løkkegaard, A.; Siebner, H.R. Functional neuroimaging of motor control in Parkinson’s disease: A meta-analysis. Hum. Brain Mapp. 2014, 35, 3227–3237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tahmasian, M.; Bettray, L.M.; van Eimeren, T.; Drzezga, A.; Timmermann, L.; Eickhoff, C.R.; Eickhoff, S.B.; Eggers, C. A systematic review on the applications of resting-state fMRI in Parkinson’s disease: Does dopamine replacement therapy play a role? Cortex 2015, 73, 80–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Conti, M.; Bovenzi, R.; Garasto, E.; Schirinzi, T.; Placidi, F.; Mercuri, N.B.; Cerroni, R.; Pierantozzi, M.; Stefani, A. Brain Functional Connectivity in de novo Parkinson’s Disease Patients Based on Clinical EEG. Front. Neurol. 2022, 13, 844745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Aydore, S.; Pantazis, D.; Leahy, R.M. A note on the phase locking value and its properties. Neuroimage 2013, 74, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lachaux, J.P.; Rodriguez, E.; Martinerie, J.; Varela, F.J. Measuring phase synchrony in brain signals. Hum. Brain Mapp. 1999, 8, 194–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mormann, F.; Lehnertz, K.; David, P.; Elger, C.E. Mean phase coherence as a measure for phase synchronization and its application to the EEG of epilepsy patients. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 2000, 144, 358–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Amano, S.; Hong, S.L.; Sage, J.I.; Torres, E.B. Behavioral inflexibility and motor dedifferentiation in persons with Parkinson’s disease: Bilateral coordination deficits during a unimanual reaching task. Neurosci. Lett. 2015, 585, 82–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bertrand, J.-A.; McIntosh, A.R.; Postuma, R.B.; Kovacevic, N.; Latreille, V.; Panisset, M.; Chouinard, S.; Gagnon, J.-F. Brain connectivity alterations are associated with the development of dementia in Parkinson’s disease. Brain Connect. 2016, 6, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Singh, A.; Cole, R.C.; Espinoza, A.I.; Brown, D.; Cavanagh, J.F.; Narayanan, N.S. Frontal theta and beta oscillations during lower-limb movement in Parkinson’s disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2020, 131, 694–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Cavanagh, J.F.; Napolitano, A.; Wu, C.; Mueen, A. The Patient Repository for EEG Data + Computational Tools (PRED+CT). Front. Neuroinform 2017, 11, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gibb, W.; Lees, A. A comparison of clinical and pathological features of young-and old-onset Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 1988, 38, 1402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ricci, L.; Croce, P.; Lanzone, J.; Boscarino, M.; Zappasodi, F.; Tombini, M.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Assenza, G. Transcutaneous Vagus Nerve Stimulation Modulates EEG Microstates and Delta Activity in Healthy Subjects. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Croce, P.; Ricci, L.; Pulitano, P.; Boscarino, M.; Zappasodi, F.; Lanzone, J.; Narducci, F.; Mecarelli, O.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Tombini, M.; et al. Machine learning for predicting levetiracetam treatment response in temporal lobe epilepsy. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2021, 132, 3035–3042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ricci, L.; Assenza, G.; Pulitano, P.; Simonelli, V.; Vollero, L.; Lanzone, J.; Mecarelli, O.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Tombini, M. Measuring the effects of first antiepileptic medication in Temporal Lobe Epilepsy: Predictive value of quantitative-EEG analysis. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2021, 132, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Babiloni, C.; Barry, R.J.; Başar, E.; Blinowska, K.J.; Cichocki, A.; Drinkenburg, W.; Klimesch, W.; Knight, R.T.; Lopes da Silva, F.; Nunez, P.; et al. International Federation of Clinical Neurophysiology (IFCN)—EEG research workgroup: Recommendations on frequency and topographic analysis of resting state EEG rhythms. Part 1: Applications in clinical research studies. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2020, 131, 285–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Pellegrino, G.; Mecarelli, O.; Pulitano, P.; Tombini, M.; Ricci, L.; Lanzone, J.; Brienza, M.; Davassi, C.; Di Lazzaro, V.; Assenza, G. Eslicarbazepine Acetate Modulates EEG Activity and Connectivity in Focal Epilepsy. Front. Neurol. 2018, 9, 1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jobert, M.; Wilson, F.J.; Ruigt, G.S.; Brunovsky, M.; Prichep, L.S.; Drinkenburg, W.H.; Committee, I.P.-E.G. Guidelines for the recording and evaluation of pharmaco-EEG data in man: The International Pharmaco-EEG Society (IPEG). Neuropsychobiology 2012, 66, 201–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Team, R.C. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2018. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 1 January 2022).
  51. Wobbrock, J.O.; Findlater, L.; Gergle, D.; Higgins, J.J. The aligned rank transform for nonparametric factorial analyses using only anova procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 7–12 May 2011; pp. 143–146. [Google Scholar]
  52. Carpenter, J.; Bithell, J. Bootstrap confidence intervals: When, which, what? A practical guide for medical statisticians. Stat. Med. 2000, 19, 1141–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sánchez-Dinorín, G.; Rodríguez-Violante, M.; Cervantes-Arriaga, A.; Navarro-Roa, C.; Ricardo-Garcell, J.; Rodríguez-Camacho, M.; Solís-Vivanco, R. Frontal functional connectivity and disease duration interactively predict cognitive decline in Parkinson’s disease. Clin. Neurophysiol. 2021, 132, 510–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, S.; Liu, A.; Wang, Z.J.; McKeown, M.J. Abnormal phase coupling in Parkinson’s disease and normalization effects of subthreshold vestibular stimulation. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2019, 13, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Jcm 12 01450 g001 550
Figure 1. Phase locking value (PLV) connectivity topoplot and comparison between Parkinson Disease (PD) and Healthy Control (HC). PLV is expressed as the average across channels to obtain a measure of global connectivity. Notice how PLV in the delta range is higher in HC compared to PD. *: p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Phase locking value (PLV) connectivity topoplot and comparison between Parkinson Disease (PD) and Healthy Control (HC). PLV is expressed as the average across channels to obtain a measure of global connectivity. Notice how PLV in the delta range is higher in HC compared to PD. *: p < 0.05.
Jcm 12 01450 g001
Jcm 12 01450 g002 550
Figure 2. Boxplot distribution of the phase locking value (PLV) connectivity values between Parkinson disease (PD, red) and healthy control (HC, blue) across different frequency bands during the motor task. Black lines represent median values. Dots denote values that are farther than 1.5 interquartile ranges. Notice how PD subjects present a lower delta connectivity (p = 0.04) and a higher gamma connectivity, although with a borderline level of significance (p = 0.05). *: p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Boxplot distribution of the phase locking value (PLV) connectivity values between Parkinson disease (PD, red) and healthy control (HC, blue) across different frequency bands during the motor task. Black lines represent median values. Dots denote values that are farther than 1.5 interquartile ranges. Notice how PD subjects present a lower delta connectivity (p = 0.04) and a higher gamma connectivity, although with a borderline level of significance (p = 0.05). *: p < 0.05.
Jcm 12 01450 g002
Jcm 12 01450 g003 550
Figure 3. Boxplot distributions of the phase locking value (PLV) mean connectivity values. Boxplot distributions of the mean PLV values for different frequency bands across Groups: Parkinson disease (PD) vs. healthy control (HC) and conditions: motor task (red) vs. resting state (blue). Black lines represent median values. Dots denote values that are farther than 1.5 interquartile ranges. Connectivity values were significantly higher during the motor task compared to the resting state in HC (p = 0.004), as opposed to PD (p = 0.18). *: p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Boxplot distributions of the phase locking value (PLV) mean connectivity values. Boxplot distributions of the mean PLV values for different frequency bands across Groups: Parkinson disease (PD) vs. healthy control (HC) and conditions: motor task (red) vs. resting state (blue). Black lines represent median values. Dots denote values that are farther than 1.5 interquartile ranges. Connectivity values were significantly higher during the motor task compared to the resting state in HC (p = 0.004), as opposed to PD (p = 0.18). *: p < 0.05.
Jcm 12 01450 g003
Jcm 12 01450 g004 550
Figure 4. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (black line) (left image) and confusion matrix (right image) of the phase locking value (PLV) in the delta frequency band during the motor task for the classification of healthy controls (HCs) and Parkinson disease (PD) patients in our cohort. Non-parametric ROC curve (blue line), binormal ROC curve (red line) and 95% confidence interval (C.I.; dotted lines) are shown. AUC = area under the curve. CI = confidence interval. TPR = true positive ratio; FPR = false positive ratio.
Figure 4. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (black line) (left image) and confusion matrix (right image) of the phase locking value (PLV) in the delta frequency band during the motor task for the classification of healthy controls (HCs) and Parkinson disease (PD) patients in our cohort. Non-parametric ROC curve (blue line), binormal ROC curve (red line) and 95% confidence interval (C.I.; dotted lines) are shown. AUC = area under the curve. CI = confidence interval. TPR = true positive ratio; FPR = false positive ratio.
Jcm 12 01450 g004
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

di Biase, L.; Ricci, L.; Caminiti, M.L.; Pecoraro, P.M.; Carbone, S.P.; Di Lazzaro, V. Quantitative High Density EEG Brain Connectivity Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease: The Phase Locking Value (PLV). J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1450. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041450

AMA Style

di Biase L, Ricci L, Caminiti ML, Pecoraro PM, Carbone SP, Di Lazzaro V. Quantitative High Density EEG Brain Connectivity Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease: The Phase Locking Value (PLV). Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(4):1450. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041450

Chicago/Turabian Style

di Biase, Lazzaro, Lorenzo Ricci, Maria Letizia Caminiti, Pasquale Maria Pecoraro, Simona Paola Carbone, and Vincenzo Di Lazzaro. 2023. "Quantitative High Density EEG Brain Connectivity Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease: The Phase Locking Value (PLV)" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 4: 1450. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041450

APA Style

di Biase, L., Ricci, L., Caminiti, M. L., Pecoraro, P. M., Carbone, S. P., & Di Lazzaro, V. (2023). Quantitative High Density EEG Brain Connectivity Evaluation in Parkinson’s Disease: The Phase Locking Value (PLV). Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(4), 1450. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12041450

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop